"Eddy Veenstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dear Debian team,
...
> The installation asked for my video-card (Nvidia GeForce 5700LE)and
> my monitor ( CTX S962 19'' LCD ). I selected the correct driver (NV)
> and gave the horizontal and vertical frequencies ( 30-80 hor, 59-75
> vert ) for my m
On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 02:26:59PM +0200, Eddy Veenstra wrote:
>
> Dear Debian team,
>
For the future: this question and others like it would be better asked
on debian-user. Debian-devel is essentially a list for Debian developers
and others to discuss the development of Debian - including off-t
We should pay attention.
the sarge is very expected release and it's late has already generated
enough noise about the debian release management.
i think we should just release sarge and try to reduce the noise around sarge.
2005/5/13, Alien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> hello.
>
> Considering
hello.
Considering the most important emprovements
introduced in Sarge respect Woody, I suggest you to call the prox stable release
Sarge 4.0.
Best regards.
Alien
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:02:32AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Kevin Mark]
> > that would suggest that its the RM who has decided such issues in the
> > past unilaterilly.
>
> Conventional wisdom is that release management involves so much
> drudgery and so little recognition that the *lea
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:02:32AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Kevin Mark]
> > that would suggest that its the RM who has decided such issues in the
> > past unilaterilly.
> Conventional wisdom is that release management involves so much
> drudgery and so little recognition that the *least*
[Kevin Mark]
> that would suggest that its the RM who has decided such issues in the
> past unilaterilly.
Conventional wisdom is that release management involves so much
drudgery and so little recognition that the *least* we can do is let
the release manager decide on codenames and version number
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 01:10:41AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Andrea Mennucc]
> > me, I do my part of the work in Debian
> >
> > and nobody ever contacted me regarding the choice of the number
>
> What that...? Why on earth would you think you should be contacted
> before this sort of d
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> FWIW, I've noticed that "3.1" is already used in quite a lot of
> documentation and on websites with articles relating to Debian. It
> was announced quite some time ago, and so it would be rather
> inconsiderate [gross understatement] to change it at this
* Jaldhar H. Vyas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050506 20:00]:
> On Fri, 6 May 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> > Their fault for releasing a book about unreleased software which is
> > bound to be outdated the day that sarge will actually release.
> Uh-uh and when will that day be? And don't give me any of t
[Andrea Mennucc]
> me, I do my part of the work in Debian
>
> and nobody ever contacted me regarding the choice of the number
What that...? Why on earth would you think you should be contacted
before this sort of decision is made?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Marc Haber wrote:
> The actual decisions are made in the background without even trying to
> talk to the body of developers. For example, the exim 4 maintainers
> were not even contacted by whoever made the decision to move the
> "default MTA" property from exim to exim4. We just found our package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrea Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Their fault for releasing a book about unreleased software which is
>>>bound to be outdated the day that sarge will actually releas
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>
>>Their fault for releasing a book about unreleased software which is
>>bound to be outdated the day that sarge will actually release.
>
>
> Uh-uh and when will that day be? And don't give me any of that "when it
> is ready"
On Fri, 6 May 2005 13:54:29 -0400 (EDT), "Jaldhar H. Vyas"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The problem isn't a concern for quality, it is people like you and Andrea
>who don't follow process, who don't contribute when the actual decisions
>are being made, but who come out of the woodwork at the last mi
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> Their fault for releasing a book about unreleased software which is
> bound to be outdated the day that sarge will actually release.
Uh-uh and when will that day be? And don't give me any of that "when it
is ready" nonsense. The release version number was
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:15:13AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2005 10:30:36 -0400 (EDT), "Jaldhar H. Vyas"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, 5 May 2005, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> >> I dont see it as a big stopper. You are saying that the number "3.1"
> >> appears /etc/debian_versi
On Thu, 5 May 2005 10:30:36 -0400 (EDT), "Jaldhar H. Vyas"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 5 May 2005, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
>> I dont see it as a big stopper. You are saying that the number "3.1"
>> appears /etc/debian_version (that lives in package "base-files")
>> and in 3 documents (and tra
hi I see that some people are opposing using "4.0", so I give up.
I just write this e-mail to better understand why
Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 01:17:45AM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
>
>>So I would much prefer if sarge would be called "Debian 4"
>>
>>Do you agree?
>
Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> > see shy jo, who argued for 4.0 at the appropriate time to discuss the
> >version number to use
>
> That is puzzling me. In 2003, in the thread starting at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/01/msg00337.html
> most people were agreeing with calling sar
Joey Hess wrote:
> Now that sarge is frozen we have /etc/debian_version, the installation
> manual, the release notes, and the website all containing the version
> number 3.1. I've probably forgotten a few other things. Updating all
> these things to change a version number kinda misses the point o
On Thursday 05 May 2005 10:38 am, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Release numbers, like release code names, are up to the release managers
> to decide. Since neither is particularly important, there's really not
> much point in discussing them at length: if the release managers want
> 3.1, then 3.1 is what
to, 2005-05-05 kello 15:52 +0200, Andrea Mennucc kirjoitti:
> So why nobody did actually change the number then?
Release numbers, like release code names, are up to the release managers
to decide. Since neither is particularly important, there's really not
much point in discussing them at length:
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> I dont see it as a big stopper. You are saying that the number "3.1"
> appears /etc/debian_version (that lives in package "base-files")
> and in 3 documents (and translations).
...and Debian 3.1 Bible whose publisher will be highly annoyed if they are
f
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:52:55PM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> I would bet 10$ that during the freeze more than 300 packages will be
> admitted into Sarge.
> And I would bet another 5$ that "base-files" will be one of them.
even considering that base-files has been frozen for, what, half a yea
Joey Hess wrote:
> Andrea Mennucc wrote:
>
>>now that sarge is frozen, I would like to start a discussion
>>on the number to associate to Sarge release.
>
> Now that sarge is frozen we have /etc/debian_version, the installation
> manual, the release notes, and the website all containing the versi
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > * Several new architectures
>
> Such as?
>
negative sparc
negative alpha
negative mips
negative mipsel
...
in fact we addded -8 architectures altogether.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Several new architectures
> Such as?
Sorry, my mistake. I forgot that woody was released on 11 architectures.
Ganesan
--
Ganesan Rajagopal (rganesan at debian.org) | GPG Key: 1024D/5D8C12EA
Web: http://employees.org/~rganesan
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:12:12PM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
> > "Bartosz" == Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would prefer to be maintainer of the well known distribution which
> > *doesn't* bump versions only for the fun of it.
>
> Exactly. This time I thin
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 11:53:45AM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> > I would prefer to be maintainer of the well known distribution which
> > *doesn't* bump versions only for the fun of it.
> >
> > I know that for most people numbers have some magic meaning, but please can
> > we try to provide stable
> "Bartosz" == Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would prefer to be maintainer of the well known distribution which
> *doesn't* bump versions only for the fun of it.
Exactly. This time I think it would have been justified. Consider
* A new installer
* Linux Kernel 2.6
Hello Bartosz,
* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-05 11:40]:
> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 01:17:45AM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> > Considering that woody was released 19 Jul 2002, it took us
> > ~3 years to release; in the meantime, all most important
> > components changed co
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 01:17:45AM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> Considering that woody was released 19 Jul 2002, it took us
> ~3 years to release; in the meantime, all most important
> components changed completely; and we did a lot of work
> in Sarge, that I do not want to see numerically
> repr
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:38:17PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> see shy jo, who argued for 4.0 at the appropriate time to discuss the
> version number to use
:-) right
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C
Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> now that sarge is frozen, I would like to start a discussion
> on the number to associate to Sarge release.
Now that sarge is frozen we have /etc/debian_version, the installation
manual, the release notes, and the website all containing the version
number 3.1. I've probably
On Thursday 05 May 2005 01:17, Andrea Mennucc wrote:
[ ... ]
> Considering that woody was released 19 Jul 2002, it took us
> ~3 years to release; in the meantime, all most important
> components changed completely; and we did a lot of work
> in Sarge, that I do not want to see numerically
> represe
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 01:47:18PM -0800, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Can you folks at Debian tell me whether we are supported in Sarge?
The stock kernels support Reiser3, but not Reiser4. Reiser4 support
packages are available, however.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
so
As far as I can see - Debian "Sarge" / Debian "testing" / Debian
GNU/Linux 3.1 - now has support both for Reiserfs [?? 3.6.19??]
and Reiser4 [?? 1.0.3 ??]. There is a kernel patch against version
2.6.8 for Reiser4.
Hope this helps - everyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong :)
Andy
--
To
Le lundi 28 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 13:47 -0800, Hans Reiser a Ãcrit :
> Can you folks at Debian tell me whether we are supported in Sarge?
As far as I know, there is no reiser4 support in the Debian stock
kernel.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 01:47:18PM -0800, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Can you folks at Debian tell me whether we are supported in Sarge?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Hans
Last time I installed sarge (ages ago, about November last year) I did
make some ReiserFS partitions and they ended up being 3.6 not 4.
Things co
Can you folks at Debian tell me whether we are supported in Sarge?
Thanks,
Hans
Ben Pont wrote:
I am preparing to install Debian "Sarge" on my
computer and am debating whether to partition
Reiser4 or Ext3.
I know Lindows supports Reiser4, Lindows being
Debian based, but do you know if Sarge explici
41 matches
Mail list logo
